About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)
, in they view, they want a change. just as i think the liberalism of obama administration is -- of the bush administration i think it is a real opportunity for conservatives and libertarian to capitalize on what will be the real failure of the obama administration. age lot of other issues simply before you can get to the question whether you can use politics to stop the growth of government or to curtail the growth of government in some way. we have many people who question whether big government is a problem. does it exist other than something as a slogan. there is this view i call it the liberal form of exceptionalism there are people that argue having annual deficit that are almost as big as the federal budget when bill clinton was president is not really a problem. there are people argue having a public held debt be a majority of our economy is not really a problem. there are people who argue that the gross federal debt consuming our entire economy being bigger than our entire economy isn't a problem. and then you have the unfunded liability of the major entitlement program like social
church. the obama administration knew about it and actually reported about in the state department religious freedom, which is still the gold standard for human rights reporting. but at the time it was happening they said nothing and did nothing. so on our watch this has happened. the bush administration, two-thirds of the christians in iraq were driven out. we have it in the book about conversations we had about secretary rice at the time saying please protecting. again, we had 100,000 troops on thground and she said no, we cannot get involved. it's sectarian here. meanwhile, the united states had just installed a shiite government in iraq and was negotiating on the path of sunni leaders to get sunni appointments in the government. so it just rang true. >> it does seem as i listen because i'm being educated on this, some rights are more equal than others, right? in other words, if we're talking about universal concept or standard of let's say women's rights, then we can speak out against them. but it seems like there's been a shining a we're doing that with regard to religious lib
. what happened if h si inside the obama administration about whether to to the fact he was working for the cia and how to get them out. what happened was initially the obama administration didn't have the pakistanis he was working for the cia. they said he was diplomat. president obama said he's a diplomat. it was only after weeks and weeks as the situation spiraled out of control increasingly, where one of the wives swallowed rat poison because she became a new martyr and was convinced raymond davis to be treated well. ultimately the obama administration went to the pakistani government and sabrina davis is with the cia. there's got to amount of the country. in march of 2011, he was ultimately released from prison after what was blood money was paid, where the guns that the families were paid over $2 million in a massive swipe away his charges and he was released to the united states and sent to an. the entire episode was a microcosm of how fraught u.s. tech any relations have become. >> what kind of work was he doing for the cia impact of and? >> he was doing a number of differen
points on the backs of weary travelers. it should be to fix the problem. look, the obama administration knew about the sequester for months, for months, yet it gave the traveling public and congress only three days' notice before implementing the furloughs that are now being blamed for these delays. the f.a.a. administrator testified before the commerce and appropriations committees last week but made no mention of the magnitude and impact of delays of these furloughs that were just right around the corner. it seems completely bluesable t- completely implausible to me when hthat he didn't mention thn he testified last week. this episode is a perfect illustration of why republicans sought to give the administration even greater flexibility to ensure they could prioritize essential services. one of the areas for which that flexibility was intended was air traffic control. the fact that the administration rejected it strongly suggests a political motive is at play here. i would also remind everyone that this flexibility was reflected by nearly every -- rejected by nearly every democrat in
to vote against obama cared cared we need to break the obama administration. senator mcconnell for senate majority leader from the republicans announcing in 2010 that his highest priority, the senate majority leader was making barack obama the one-term president. if we had a coalition presidency were each party would elect a partner it wouldn't stand to gain as much clinical opposition. no matter what they did it was still share the white house with the other party so then it would be much freer to judge legislative proposals on their merits. so to put it another way, it's not surprising when you have a winner-take-all election for presidency whose power has grown to a level of the presidency you shouldn't be surprised that we have high levels of partisan conflict. indeed if you go back the increase in partisan conflict, to go back to the 50s and 60's there is much more of a cross party lines. if you look at partisan conflict graph it has risen since the 40s in the 50s grassley to levels we have today. presidential powers have increased at the same time so it's not surprising. so as they
. >> guest: again the question really is, the obama administration and many senate democrats have maintained that the implementation of standards even if they are baseline for critical infrastructure structures will compel better behavior. have you seen that in the electric industry? you have dealt with these standards to take the electric companies to force standards. >> guest: if there are standards people in the companies are responsible for implementation of the standards and there is a federal regulator that you have to go to to be accountable for the standards so there is that attention that is fair and as i indicated you still have to go way beyond the standards in order to -- >> guest: and you know beyond the standards one of the biggest threats to the security of our cyberinfrastructures the human element, the insider threat. the heiress of co-mission are the errors of omission and employee training is one of the most important things. you have the best standards and the best technology and the best procedures but if your people are not trained or your customers are not trained, the
subcommittee held a hearing tuesday on the constitutionality of the obama administration, using drugs to target terror suspects overseas. this has included u.s. military officials, constitutional law professors and again the activist whose villages had by a stream to strike causing civilian tragedies. [inaudible conversations] >> return of the subcommittee on the civil rights and human rights will come to order. today's hearing is entitled drone wars, the counterterrorism institutions of killing. senator cruises on its way from another hearing. there are conflicting schedules we face here. this is the first-ever public hearing in the senate to address the use of drones and targeted killing. we are pleased to have such a large audience for today's hearing that demonstrates the importance and timeliness of this issue. thank you to those hearing person, those watching live on c-span and is following a hearing on twitter and facebook you stand the hash type drone wars. the rules of the semiprivate outbursts, popular demonstrations of any kind. please be mindful of the service as we conduct this hea
as to all applications. and apparently the obama administration felt it would be unconstitutional for congress to provide too many limits on the president's power to conduct hostilities against libya. now where those are we don't really know. so the commander-in-chief clause is actually a very important constitutional provision. and logan's project i think is the first one to actually give it some legal purchase. what might've been the official meaning of the commander-in-chief clause. because windows was drafted at philadelphia, i think the only commander-in-chief bid on was george washington. they certainly did not have george iii in mind. they did not have even governors in mind. governors were also the heads of the militias in various states. those also not their goal. but instead their model, if they had one, they probably did, was george washington. one of the many things logan's book does in wonderful detail, it really does give you an idea, not just of the fact that george washington was universally exclaimed, but some of the reasons he was reasonable -- admired. he was no
of legalization and the obama administration's response to substance abuse. gil kerlikowske was the featured speaker at the national press club. this is 50 minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. it's a great pleasure and honor to be with all of you. first, let me thank so many people for being here today. and thank you for that wonderful introduction and the information, and i'm so glad you had a chance to spend some time with general dean who's somebody i'm going to talk about a lot in a few minutes along with a couple other people up here, also, that i've been so impressed with. the drug policy issue, the drug policy problems are really complex, and they're really difficult, and that's why i'm so appreciative of this forum to be able to talk a little bit more at length about it and then, certainly, to answer the questions. let me also mention the fact that donna ledger from the "usa today" is a person that has written extensively, also, about the drug problems in this country. and i know, as was mentioned in the introduction earlier, she is in boston right now with so many other jour
their rights being read, then law enforcement may be able to do so. and when the obama administration announced it was going to use the public safety exception we said, well, you might be able to do that but recognize that it is limited and narrow. and, so now, i think that might have been invobed. we don't know. that is one of the things that we don't actually currently know now. how this has proceeded. and i think what's important here is not the defendant has counsel and has gone before a judge and so we look to the system to work, which means we expect prosecutors to proceed fairly and prove their case and defense lawyers to zealously perform their duty and we'll look to see what facts they find and what arguments they make going forward. >> host: cliff may, how different is the public safety exception that can be invoked in that first phase after a detention of a suspect? how is that different than looking at military or enemy combatant status? >> guest: the main difference would be as hina has correctly said the public safety exception is very narrow and limited in time. it is not exactly
. the report put out by the constitution project is critical of both bush and obama administration's. it includes former members of congress. this is 50 minutes. >> thank you for your leadership on the task force and i want to express my thanks to the constitution project, but also to all of my fellow task force members what they brought to the table in terms of experience, wisdom, public service really made a difference in the development of this project and important report. as jim mentioned, there's more than 24 findings and recommendations. we can't cover all of those this morning that we want to hit some of the highlights. we hope he will take the entire report, study it through and look at each of those recommendations. why is this report important? it's important because we as a nation have to get this right. i looked back in history to the time during world war ii that we in turn to some japanese-americans. at the time it seemed like the right and proper thing to do but in light of history, it was an error. as of today this report will hopefully put into focus some of the a
of the canadian presidency, the united states, the obama administration will take over the arctic council. that will be, my dear friends, some testing time for the united states in term of the community, the political community, the engagement of the business corporation, the think tank and the others. it will be a testing time indicating how does the united states see the future of the arctic? what is the direction it wants to give? not only to the other arctic countries but also to india, china, many of the european countries and others that also want to be a part of the arctic future. that is why in addition to the great tradition of this institution, we were honored and pleased to use this venue, the national press club in washington to announce establishment of the arctic circle. we all live, as was mentioned, in the introduction in a dependent world. we perhapses don't realize every day how dependent we are on the ice. but in -- but it is melting and meltings fast. that is why the chinese are already repairing. that's why singapore got a special division in the foreign ministry look
had stagnant growth frankly throughout most of the obama administration and the leadership in the last five years. we need do better. >> host: why is it okay to spent billions of year on corporate entitlement who don't pay taxes. we pay for our entitlements wall street does not. >> guest: it's not okay. , i mean, frankly, we need to bring it in and change our tax code in a way that lowers rates for everybody and eliminate the big corporation. i do recognize, i think the caller -- the e-mail is correct. folks have paid in to social security and medicare deserve to receive those benefits. the problem is something is not done, then the programs over time have the risk of going away. >> host: on twitter wouldn't social security and medicare be in a better shape if wages were higher? >> guest: wouldn't social security and medicare be in better shape if wages were higher? yeah. that's right. one of the challenges we face is how do you get the growing economy going forward and that is up with of our big debate for the summer. republicans believe that we need modify our tax code and reduce rat
korea allies and our japanese allies as well. and i think that the obama administration with the b-52 deployments, with the b-2 deployments and other statements we've made have done exactly that. that's the right way to do it, to respond to this crisis. not by making it even more complicated by reintroducing nuclear weapons onto the korean peninsula or having the rok develop its own nuclear weapons program. >> okay, thanks. we've spent a lot of time analyzing the situation, and now we want to turn at the end to what to do about it. and evans has made the important point that, um, as much as one would like a role for diplomacy and negotiated sort of solution or management of these problems, the conversation that the united states wants to have now quite different from the conversation that north korea is willing to have. and vice versa. so the question then is, are there specific things that might be done to get us off this dime and produce a more useful and mutually beneficial, mutually acceptable conversation? and to start i'd like to turn to mike who's write about this. >> thanks, r
of national drug control policy spoke last week about the obama administration's response to substance abuse. gil kerlikowske also announced a $1.4 million grant to the national association of drug court professionals for their work in helping nonviolent offenders with substance abuse. hosted by the national press club in washington, d.c., this is just over 50 minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. it's a great pleasure, and it's a great honor to be with all of you. first, let me thank so many people for being here today. and thank you for that wonderful introduction and the information, and i'm so glad you had a chance to spend some time with general dean who's somebody i'm going to talk about a lot in a few minutes along with a couple other people up here, also, that i've been so impressed with. the drug policy issue, the drug policy problems are really complex, and they're really difficult, and that's why i'm so appreciative of this forum to be able to talk a little bit more at length about it. and then, certainly, to answer the questions. let me also mention the fact that donna lin
is available to answer those questions. on the issue of the obama administration, during the 2008 campaign, president obama criticized the bush administration's treatment of detainees. candidate obama promised to close guantÁnamo and to reject torture without exception or equivocation to the also criticized previous administration for executive secrecy, including repeated invocation of the state secret privilege to get civil lawsuits thrown out of course, and he promised to lead a new era of openness. the administration has fulfilled some of those promises, and inconspicuously failed to fulfill others. in some cases because congress has lost them but in other places -- block them. as mentioned earlier, i level of secrecy surrounding the rendition and torture of detainees cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security. the authorized enhanced techniques have been publicly disclosed, and the cia has approved its former employees publication of detailed accounts of individuals and interrogation. ongoing classification of gerald document these practices serves only to conce
the thistle and the drone and to lay out the use of loans by the obama administration. it is recorded at american university in washington, d.c. is part of book tv college series. it's about half an hour to the >> booktv is on location at american university in washington, d.c.. we are pleased to be joined here by professor akbar ahmed at american university to give his most recent book is the vessel and the drone how america's war on taricani global terror on islam. dr. ahmed come visit a clash of civilizations or class of religion? >> i would say it is more complex. i find these concepts rather simplistic and by now more than ten years after 9/11, we should be aware of the complexity of what is happening on the ground a lot where america is involved in the various wars to it i find in this particular study that many of these conflicts are rooted in the clash already taking place before 9/11 between central governments and the tribes and communities on the periphery between states so therefore without an understanding of the culture and the history it is impossible to impose the simp
? >> there was a major investment in the clinton administration, in the bush administration, and the obama administration. it's been something there's been broip agreement on. i would note the head of nih in the bush administration has been critical of the impact of the cuts on sequester both in term of medical research and future economic growth. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, mr. secretary. i want to go back to questioning from the gentleman from georgia related to the limit on individual type of retirements. this would apply equally to men and women. >> it is neutral with regard to gender. do you think that women need less retirement income than men? >> i don't think this is a provision that says either men or women need more or less. it's a provision that the tax benefit should be available to a certain amount. and the amount is $3 million. >> this that case, i'm in at the loss on the pop. the limit is based on a gender-neutral contribution. and women live longer than men. annuity are more aexpensive. and this means that any cap on a tax advantage retirement plan
confirmation, so i would think that the obama administration would be thanking the senate for its work to make it easier for any president to get confirmations, and in any event when we're talking about cabinet members, president obama is being better treated than the last three presidents. we are talking about circuit judges. he is better treated than george w. bush. when we're talking about district judges, he is treated a little worse in his first term than george w. bush, but we changed the rules to speed up district judges and the score in the second term, as i have said twice now, obama 13, bush 1, obama way ahead. i like to see confirmations move ahead. i hope i don't hear this much more when the record shows that in fact it's a manufactured crisis. i thank the president and i yield the the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the torres nomination. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question is on the watson nomination. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call
of the first things that the obama administration could, should, and won't do is have a treasury department, an executive agency designate china currency manipulator so the cues can start taking countermeasures against it. there was a bill to crack down on bill manipulation passed in the house and senate in separate sessions so was it was not law. that was one of the immediate things people ask, what could one do, but the larger issue is the u.s. similarly has to get wise to the fact that free trade is a theoretical construct built on sand, and it's consequences, which are observable, are bad and they are inexitble. if anyone has questions, i'll take them now. >> i got a question. >> one moment, please. we'll bring the. i should say, author and senior economist, [inaudible] >> sorry, i think now -- yes, sorry, and we'd like to remind our viewing audience this is a program at the commonwealth club of california, why free trade doesn't work. so your questions are recorded anded in the telecast, use the microphone that i'll now -- >> thank you, a spirited talk. i have a question from a nonecon
in the obama administration. this is a military procedure in terms of the trial of this gentleman and i want to make sure the record is clear, even though the gentleman is a great member and has every right to question that is not something the department of justice's handling. >> i appreciate that. the only reason i bring it up is because mr. mchugh set in this interview that i'm not attorney and i don't buy the end, there were told the purple heartwarwon the ability to conct a fair trial.thansw by the secretary of themmpies the justice rtnthte no, we as i know come in the decision is to not influence in any way anything the justice department said, but i would look at that to the extent that had interaction with the defense department relay that to you. i think what congressman fattah has said is correct. this is a military investigation were not involved in making purple heart determinations. i'm just not aware of it. >> mr. rooney is accurate. mr. mchugh is that i'm not an attorney and i don't in the justice department. i think he's right before they did anything, they went to the justi
serves in his second term now in the obama administration, and this is a military procedure in terms of the trial of this gentleman. and i just want to make sure the record is clear, even though the gentleman who was a great member and has every right to question the attorney general, but it's not something the department of justice handles. >> and i appreciate that. the only reason i bring it up is because mr. mchugh himself said in this interview, that i'm not an attorney and i don't run the justice department, but we are told that the purple heart award would have a profound affect on the ability to conduct a fair trial. so the answer by the secretary of the army and implies that the justice department has some in albany. and that's what i'm asking. so if your answer to that is no, then we certainly can move on. >> as far as i know, the decision to award purple hearts does not influence in the bud with the justice department said that i will look at that, and to the extent we've had some interaction with the defense department, relay that to you. but i think what the congressman h
. >> and discipline therapy and truth, do you see any song the effect from this administration. secondly, president obama, the transition. president obama agrees with anything that is deceiving. and redistribution. >> and we all want the same thing. and there is deep disagreement at the moment, and there's so much disagreement right now. the discussion really ideological points. one the best ways. and whether it can be many paths. and what we mentioned. and businesses, if i have a good one. and to be tactical, the question right now is whether -- pecan ground. >> quick question with regards to education. the nyu school of business. i see from that for there are a lot of international students. from personal experience, obviously doing something right by attracting foreign students and go back and implement the things we talked about. are we doing the right thing? why are they coming and while we not going to north korea to study? >> that is the great question. one of the great things about the united states, higher education, and study. that is one of the reasons, if what we talk about facing the
reach. a third area of focuses is school safety. unfortunately, the obama administration in the past several years reduced funding for school safety by over $300 million. next to me are detailed the security our cools stkpwrapbts were cut $110 million in 2012. school safety initiative was cut $53 million in 2011. and the safe and drug-free schools grants were cut $184 million in 2010. this substitute restores funding for school safety. if the effort is to protect our kids -- and i know all 100 senators want to do everything we can to protect our kids. one of the most direct ways is to make sure there are resources on the ground protecting our kids. and so this bill would provide $3400 million in funding -- $300 million in funding, 30 million a year for ten years, to do exactly that, to provide funding for the secure our schools grants. a fourth area is improving the existing background checks as it concerns mental illness. if you look for a common theme among these mass murderers that we have seen recent years, one of the most disturbing things is we've seen person after person with
obama's administration officials surprised in recent weeks with an amended approach to syria. we don't want an outright rebel military victory right now because in the words of one senior official quote the good guys may not come out on top. >> well, if that depends on your definition of good guys. certainly the jihadist the sunni dominated groups, the fighting groups and the opposition most notable on its way to terms of size have recently pledged allegiance to al qaeda. that is a great concern. they are present in 13 of the 14 provinces in iran and are starting to establish municipal services providing humanitarian aid, food, hospitals and sharia law. >> do you think all this might've been avoided if we hadn't sat by and watched it happen? i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator mccain. senator reid. >> thank you very much . chrman and thank you gentlemen for not only her testimony but your service. the issue at front and center is sequestration and i just have a more procedural question. first of all as i understand it your appropriation is part of the defense of her patien
. this brings the numbers of alaska to the number of originally planned during the bush administration, i believe, later we deuced by president obama. i have a question to you about this. was the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made, and if so, when did that occur? >> the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government who was not consulted in any way, and it was not that decision, that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally, i addthat those als not yeally lasted, but some ar in -- california. >> okay. to your tog, they were not cop culted? if the department decides additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and w
to the number originally planned during the bush administration with president obama. i have a question for you with the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made and if so, when it that occur? >> well, the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government was not consulted in any way. it was not decision that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally i would add that those gbi also not only really alaska but some are -- california. >> okay. to your knowledge they were not consulted. the department were to dpd that additional missile defense systems were needed, to be deployed domestically or abroad. would the russian government be informed before the decision was made? >> first, i can't answer for the president. will they include any of our nato allies as part of our discussion? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in the per view of the secretary of state and the white house. i have not been consulted on on the possibility what
at an administration that has two former prime ministers, and three former party presidents. you must envy us because you can't do anything like that and present your system. bill clinton vice president of obama, very difficult imagining. now i will start off by touching upon our alliance. my view is that something is wrong when you say that the u.s. is always on the giving end and japan always on the receiving end. about provision of the security and our alliance. the japanese stand tall as an equal and responsible ally to the u.s. the japanese must work hard as a guardian of international common goods, peace, prosperity, and democracy. in fact, my grandfather's grandfather as a aspirations,y september 1951 in san francisco, the security agreement. he hoped that one day japan could work with the u.s. as an equal partner to sustain the liberal international order. 62 years later, that aspiration still holds. it is my belief that japan has its noble responsibility to enhance peace, hpiss and democracy in the world. that's why, ladies and gentlemen, japan must begin its economic power. that's why we ar
, the bill does nothing to improve the metrics that this and the future administration will use to ensure that that the border is truly secure. congress passed a law in 2007 requiring that the 100% or the border be 100% quote-unquote operationally controlled. however, president obama and secretary napolitano abandoned that metrix. the bill before is weakenes current law by only requiring the southern border to be 90% effectively secured. in some sector, only the so-called high risk sectors. what about the other six sectors? then before green card are allocated to those here illegally, the secretary only has to certify that the security plans and fencings are quote-unquote substantially deployed. operational. and completed. if the secretary doesn't do her job, then a commission is created to provide recommendations. this is just a loophole that allows the secretary to neglect doing the job. another area of interest for me is the employment verification measure. as i said before so many times, i was here in 1986 when we for the first time made it illegal for employers to hire undocumented i
the advisory he was taught by the wars outside the war zone. early on the obama administration. and he said in contrast to the wars in iraq and afghanistan where the united states has used a hammer, he said we, the obama administration, can use a scalpel. it was an idea i had that scalpel certainly applied a sos free. surgery without obligations. but we see that's not the case in a lot of places. so i thought i would take his analogy and make it a nice because nice fights are a lot messier. >> host: steve, california, you're on with mark mazzetti from "the new york times." >> caller: this. the united states has not declared war in over 70 years. the wars we thought, korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan have all been basically unconstitutional. we seem to have given up any a semblance of pretending to declare war, congress seems to have no stomach to declaring war but obviously no problem fighting them. i'm wondering whether or not you think that the militarization of the cia, potential conflict between the different agencies and the defense department might in fact said whether that we return
to something that affects most americans americans today and and a subject that the obama administration has really been focused on for these past four years. we are going to remain focused in this area for the next four years. that is achieving real evidence-based drug policy reform to both reduce drug use but also the consequences. more and more the debate about drug policy in america is becoming extremely polarized. one side advocates in believing that legalization is the only path to drug policy reform. legalization is described as solving mexico's organized crime and violence problems and creating a windfall for state and local coffers here in the united states and along with many other benefits that are all talked about legalization. and you have the other hand. the other hand we have the enforcement centric war on drugs that was mentioned in my introduction and that approach and that is one that treats addiction primarily as a criminal justice problem despite this ever-growing body of scientific knowledge and evidence that this approach is counterproductive and is not effective. sloga
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)